Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years/Archive 3

Survey Results
The results are in from the survey. Some discussion was started on the surveys talk page but I think that may fracture discussions so I'm moving it all here and creating a redirect at the survey talk to this page. Copied text follows. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 17:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

From Survey talk page:
So the results are in! Lots of support for some items, division for others. Questions still remain about some areas, and a 2nd Survey (or maybe just a lively discusion) may be in order. Maybe a standard page could be written using these results and people could edit it. Perhaps we should pick a page, say 2002, to test things out on? Good start though, way to go everyone! - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yearboxes: A late vote for a content-rich yearbox; not like the 18th-c ones. A narrower box as the content diminishes, yes; and a fixed-width pair of tables, so each template is a complete table within itself. +sj +

Calendars
Just noticed a survey about calendars on year articles. The Wikiproject Calendars put it out and since its results directly affect us here I thought people would like to check it out. Since our survey indicated people don't want calendars on year pages I'm not sure how this will all turn out. See the survey here - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
Infoboxes seem to be the way to go, but i think the main concern people have is the way they look on some screens. Sj seems to have put that concern to bed with his edits of Template:C21YearInTopic nad Template:Yearbox. The boxes are now at a set width of 350px and a couple of well placed breaks and abrev's. All seems well to spread this use to the other templates involved. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 19:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Julian, Gregorian and other calendars
When debating the Julian/Gregorian issues, we seem to have all forgotten one thing: different countries switched over at different times. Should we refer to both for all years between 1582 and 1926? Moreover, is there any consistency at the moment in whether dates of events/births/deaths in this range are given in Julian or Gregorian?

I meant to reply on a possible format for XXXX in other calendars. Maybe something like this:

and for the conversions to other calendars:

with some 'appropriate' choice of Julian or Gregorian for the year in question. But we probably ought to deal with the Julian/Gregorian debate as a whole before worrying about this. -- Smjg 12:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We should refer to both Julian Calendar and Gregorian calendar for all years between 1582 and 1926 whenever dates concern countries and areas using Julian calendar at that time. This is what I am doing for Russian events in 19th century. Otherwise, Gregorian calendar dates only should be fine.--Jusjih 07:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Deaths Section
I know people support having all deaths on the year page but I see a major problem arising from this. If every name is to be listed then that will add 112kb to the 2004 page alone (that's the current size of Deaths in 2004). I personally think that if there should be a limit, say world figures and leaders, entertainment icons etc. Redlinks should especially be omitted. I don't know what the upper limit will end up being though. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Roman numerals?
Someone is adding the year in roman numerals to year pages. I was looking at 2000 and was wondering what the heck the (MM) was after the year. I reverted it as vandalism before it came to me. But I think the roman numerals will just confuse people. --Pmsyyz 05:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He's added them again. Should I revert them?  He also tends to run the years and roman numerals together and bold both, the result of which is incredibly ugly.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if there was a standard way to add them. -- User:Docu


 * I'm kind of of the opinion that the roman numeral can be put in the infobox along with any other alternate nomenclatures. Anyway, that user is back...  I don't know, should I revert the bolding of the roman numerals?  It's irritating that he's not following the wikiproject and not responding to any comments, but I don't know what to do. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The inclusion after the current notation [ 2000 (MM) ] is indeed less than optimal. It may be an advantage to include it another way in the initial text [ 2000 (Roman: MM) ] or [ 2000 (MM) ], unless there is an elegant way to add it to an infobox.
 * You may want to invite the anon user to comment (on his talk page or editing notes). -- User:Docu

Hi:
Hi, just letting everyone know that I'm joining your group here. I'm looking forward to putting down the dates for everything, unless we don't do that... But I suppose we do, so anyway.... If you don't want me in the group, that's fine, cause I wouldn't want me in your group either, (Just kidding). K, bye...Spawn Man 04:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Popular Culture/Comic Strips
I recently added the debut of the Dick Tracy comic strip to the Events section of 1931 (Date October 4). But I'm not completely happy with putting it there. It doesn't seem in keeping with the other events. However, I don't know if it really belongs in 1931 in literature... is a comic strip literature? I think maybe a new type of timeline article like Years- or Decades in popular culture would be appropriate, but we already have music and television as their own year in articles. I don't want to drop it altogether, I think it's significant enough for some type of timeline (and a broader category than just comic strips), but just can't figure out the right place for it. Any thoughts? Thanks, --LiniShu 19:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, comics are counted as literature, so are nursery rhymes, books etc... I don't think we should create a new category, as as you said, we already have tv & music etc... Spawn Man 03:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did go ahead and move the Dick Tracy debut from the main 1931 article to 1931 in literature, per Spawn Man's consensus that such a move would not be inappropriate. Actually, after checking out 1931 in art, I saw that the birth of a comic strip artist was listed in that article, and furthermore WikiProject Comics places comic strips in the heirarchy for both art and literature. So, I added Dick Tracy to 1931 in art as well. Thanks again, Spawn Man, for your perspective.

Links to years
There is some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 on when the years should be linked. Some editors use the current wording to justify delinking all year pages. -- User:Docu

Special Article
I've made a special article and it only includes turbulent years and also i've made a link to a special article that sill dont have a formal name yet (for now it is called 2001-2005) its only about the events that happened in that time period (most of it bad news which is the reason for creating this article. I've havent put any information in it but heres the links if you want to start this article: ask me if you have any questions or commentsStorm05 19:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2001 year in review
 * 2002 year in review-nicknamed year of layoffs, payoffs and chaos.
 * 2003 year in review
 * 2004 year in review
 * 2002 year in review (CNN.com

Timeline Infobox (YearInTopic) and sporadically busy countries
I do love the look of the sidebar (like ), but there is a problem:

The sidebar contains links to certain busy countries, but not others. In some years, other countries were busy, too, such as 1830 in France. I don't like the current situation in which an editor who edits a year has to choose between Or is there another option? Common Man 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC), revised 03:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * adding a "See also" section (which is unsatisfactory since it is miles away from the other country links in the sidebar) or
 * Writing the country below the century box (ugly!) or
 * Adding it to the century box (or requesting the addition) - The solution obviously can't be to indiscriminately include each such "sporadically busy" country in all sidebars for a whole century.)

2005 in the United States AFD
Editors may be interested in the AFDs for 2005 in the United States and 2004 in the United States. Kappa 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures in year articles
Pictures enliven pages, and provide valuable learning aids for visual types. With pages like Mammal as a model, I therefore added pictures to the pages from 1825 to 1838.

What do others think - is this helpful?

Background of this question: I found a nice little niche for me by cleaning up the year articles. So far I went from 1818 to 1838 and set myself the goal of going through the whole century with the hope of eventually earning one of those barn stars. I enjoyed doing this until an RC patroller of merit reverted one of the pictures because he felt there was "no need for it in article" and threatened to remove all of them. Thus, I ceased and desisted, but it took the joy out of my little project. I would like to continue improving these articles without being bullied, which I feel is inappropriate given my track record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Common Man 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think pictures are great in year articles - they add needed visual interest and can be quite relevant. Lots of people agree; if you need back up for your discussion with the reverting editor, find the survey on year articles (linked to somewhere above on this talk page, I think), which shows a solid consensus for adding images to year articles. - Bantman 19:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be picture, but the reversion may have to do with the fact that the picture was included as part of the infobox. I think a better form to follow would be like on 2005, where the pictures are along the page near the related text item. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 19:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I now realize I should have added "19th century" to the headline. This certainly looks better on 2005. I triad that, too, but since the articles of the 19th century are much smaller (events section about half a screenful, often even ends before the infobox) I felt that it just looks much nicer this way and moved it into the infobox. Generally, more than one picture would cram the page. But if we need more, it is also possible to keep them in the infobox (which can be regarded as sort of a sidebar). Common Man 20:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand now why you did it that way. The only problem now is that the current standard for the infobox will not allow for this. I and others have been (slowly) updated the pages but as you can see we have a ways to go. As an example I updated to 1825 infobox to the current standard and now the picture must be seperate. I do agree that in short articles it can be placed just below the infobox. Keep it up! - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your encouragement! The new layout does take getting used to. I'm missing the "sidebar" feel one gets when the picture is in the infobox (similar to the mammal page). OTOH, it puts the picture at the top, which makes it immediately visible even on small monitors, inviting to pleasantly browse through the year pages. Common Man 20:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Trevor; the infoboxes need to be immediately visible to be useful in navigation, while the picture don't have to be. That said, they are an attractive addition, and I entirely support adding them in the 2005 style.  Keep up the good work! Warofdreams talk 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I take exception to the report that I "bullied" Common Man! I did no such thing - I saw an edit which I thought was inappropriate (and still do - I cannot see why the "Years" articles need illustrations, as they increase the size of the article, nor why any particular event should be chosen to illustrate a year, as (a) the illustration is best found in the article itself and (b) potentially implies a precedence of one event over the others).  I reverted the edit adding the picture, and only the one edit, giving those reasons. Stephenb (Talk) 10:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You did threaten to revert all of them. That's what I meant by "bullying".
 * But let's not quibble over words and let bygones be bygones. I do appreciate that you're taking the time to go on RC patrol, and you seem to be very effective, which is something I wouldn't be able to do as well as you. I think Wikipedia can only prosper when we respect each other. If you take that to heart then I wish you success with all of your future endeavours! Common Man 11:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro statement?
Some questions have arisen lately on what exactly is the intro statement supposed to be. I think it would be good to have another quick discussion/vote on this and get the issue settled. The following are a few examples in current use:

From 2005
2005 (MMV) was a common year starting on Saturday of the Gregorian calendar. It corresponded to the years 5765-5766 in the Hebrew Calendar, 1425-1426 in the Islamic Calendar, 1383-1384 in the Iranian calendar and 2758 a.u.c.

From 2004
2004 (MMIV) was a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar.

From 1979
1979 (MCMLXXIX) is a common year starting on Monday.

From 1800
1800 was a common year starting on Wednesday (see link for calendar).

So I think the options we have to decide are:

Present

 * 1) Was indicates that it is now something else. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) Until someone creates a separate page with them all on it I think each one should be spelled out.

No

 * 1) I think people realise that blue text means a link - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything else? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Exact dates
I basically like the references to other calendars - however, I'm missing one important detail. When do these years begin and end? They don't all begin on January 1, do they? If they start on different days then "correspond" is just a lame weasel word which we should replace with exact dates. Common Man 17:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wording of intro statement
I find the word order "2004 is a leap year starting on Thursday of the Gregorian calendar" terribly clumsy. Wouldn't it be clearer to write
 * 2004 is a leap year of the Gregorian calendar starting on Thursday

--Redaktor 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Coins from each year
has added external links to a number of year articles for a site showing a variety of coins from that year. Should this be treated as link spam, or are these links actually useful? An example is for 1942.-gadfium 02:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Template- Germany
The 1920 articles are missing- By Country: Germany, France, wheareas non-existant "192x in Mexico" articles are linked. And BTW, how can u edit a meta template, is it? Ksenon 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Different calendars
User:Philip Stevens has recently created Template:Different calendars and placed it on some of the most recent years pages. It may be the solution to some of the problems with the intro (as to how to deal with the links to calendars etc.). Does anyone have an opionion about it? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 20:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an opinion for how to improve the "Hindu calendar" portion (see talk). But otherwise I like it a lot, for what it's worth! QuartierLatin1968 [[Image:Red flag waving transparent.png|20px|El bien mas preciado es la libertad]] 17:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a very good idea but I do have some doubts about the chose of some of the calendars. The Japanese calendar, for example, uses the length of reign of emperors to decide a year, so it doesn’t work for any years in the future. As the Template only seems to be attached to years of the 21st century, only the first six years of are currently relevant. Also, I don’t think that the Runic calendar or Ab urbe condita are used any more. I feel there should be a further discussion, ether here or at Template talk:Different calendars, to decide which calendars are suitable for this template. Hera1187 10:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject
Take a look at the newly-created WikiProject Current events. The two WikiProjects may be able to work together on a few things. joturn e r 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Timelines
I have just reformatted the moribund WikiProject Timelines so that people who are interested can add themselves to the membership section and co-operate on developing Timeline standards and specific time line articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Years in music
Is there still a WikiProject Years in music? I searched for it very hard, and I didn't find it, which disappoints me, because Years in music articles are very chaotic and unstandardized. And, does WikiProject Years policy also apply to Years in music? Thanks. --Methegreat 23:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Derek Avaritt?
Who on Earth is Derek Avaritt, and why do we need to know of his birth?

666
On June the 6th, 2006, someone moved the article 666 to 666 (year) and made 666 a redirect to 666 (disambiguation). That day I visited a page containing a link to the year 666 and came on the dab page. I did not know about this project and started disambiguating a lot of links (666 -> 666 (year) or others). Later I found out about this project. I reverted all my edits and changed 666 to be redirect page to 666 (year) so all the links are correct again. But since this is not the wanted situation (according to this project) it probably is best to move 666 (year) back to 666 and make 666 (year) a redirect to 666 instead. That way the old situation is restored and page 666 again follows the same policy that is used for all other years. Cpt. Morgan 14:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that we shouldn't make an exception in this case, actually; I would guess that 666 should actually redirect to Number of the Beast, since it's far more commonly used in that sense than any of the other options. Kirill Lokshin 15:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I see your point and don't really mind what the choice will be (and will happily start removing dab links again :)), such an exception will be the start of more XXXX year pages being moved to XXXX (year) and replaced by a disambiguation page. If 666 points to another page, why not also the page 1 (surely the number has greater implications than the year, compare 1 with 1 (disambiguation)). Cpt. Morgan 16:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please move it back. The date system depends on the years being at the number rather than elsewhere. -- User:Docu


 * So moved. Rich Farmbrough 13:46 29 June 2006 (GMT).